Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe? So I guess it is from that some adherents from Dharmic religions ask, who created God?

Most Dharmic religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, perhaps others) say that a first beginning is not discernible. This seems to make sense more than just saying "God was always there, there is no creator of God".

Astronomers talk of the big bang and the numerous (billions, trillions or more) solar systems and galaxies and how a new one evolves from the matter left behind of the old, seemingly ad infinatum.

binocular wrote:Why would the Creator need to have a creator and so ad infinitum?

I've often seen it claimed that a creator god needs a creator god and so into infinite regress, but never seen it explained why this would necessarily be so.

I think one reason why a creator would need to have a creator is that, in order to be a creator, one must 'act' in such a way that one 'creates' something. If 'action' occurs, then some sort of change in the creator is occurring. If the creator is 'acting', that is, 'changing', then the creator is not unchanging; thus, the creator, like any other conditioned entity, 'changes'.

Everything that changes, changes due to causes and conditions. Thus, the creator (as something that changes) itself needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on.

There's one Christian church that would have no problem with a creator having a creator. That church is the Mormon church.

One theory: our ancestors noticed that since humans (unlike many other animals) are pretty good at creating tools, clothing, fire, etc., then the world itself (rivers, trees, sky) must be a creation of some entity/ies or other.

It's interesting that Genesis, in Hebrew, does not imply creation from nothingness. It implies a deity (or deities: "elohim" is plural) creating from previously existing material. In fact, the Hebrew Genesis itself does not preclude the idea of the "elohim" themselves having been created.

One theory: our ancestors noticed that since humans (unlike many other animals) are pretty good at creating tools, clothing, fire, etc., then the world itself (rivers, trees, sky) must be a creation of some entity/ies or other.

It's interesting that Genesis, in Hebrew, does not imply creation from nothingness. It implies a deity (or deities: "elohim" is plural) creating from previously existing material. In fact, the Hebrew Genesis itself does not preclude the idea of the "elohim" themselves having been created.

In other words, the idea of a creator god creates more questions.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

To help make sense of our place in a seemingly incomprehensible universe.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

I think as we learn more about the cosmos, we might learn that a creation of a cosmos is in the realm of human possibility. Even at this moment, there might be physically based beings of such intelligence that they have been able to manipulate matter in such a way to create a black hole or singularity, by means of which a new universe (or two) can be created. Maybe these beings have also figured out a way to adjust the physical constants of the universes they create (making gravity a little bit stronger, or electricity a little weaker). Maybe they also figured out ways to set a "time-limit" on the existence of these new universes. These beings would still be in the web of kamma-vipaka, however; and would themselves be the 'creations' (i.e., children) of one or more parental beings.

With respect, I disagree with you Sarath.I have been able to teach my children to respect others without the need to believe in a god.I've given them a foundation in Dhamma but I've also encouraged them to question everything and think for themselves. They do not need the carrot and stick from some invisible grumpy old man in the clouds to know what is right or wrong.Whether or not they are attracted to the Dhamma later on will be a matter of their kamma.Kind regards,Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

With respect, I disagree with you Sarath.I have been able to teach my children to respect others without the need to believe in a god.I've given them a foundation in Dhamma but I've also encouraged them to question everything and think for themselves. They do not need the carrot and stick from some invisible grumpy old man in the clouds to know what is right or wrong.Whether or not they are attracted to the Dhamma later on will be a matter of their kamma.Kind regards,Ben

Morality and positive behavior towards others is not dependent upon a god idea.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

SarathW wrote:Agree.But how do you teach, Morality and positive behavior towards others to a fool?Due to fear some people avoid bad action.

Well, they can be instructed in the consequences of actions without lying to them about the existence of a creator deity.

This last always takes the form of unmoved mover (e.g. causeless cause) ideation, which is basically a "here there be dragons" for the edges of cognitive space.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]